A CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY MAN
suffered brain damage when he
was thrown from his snowmobile
on a trail during a night ride and
struck by another snowmobile on
the same path. The injured man sued
the snowmobiler who struck him,
seeking $2.7 million in damages.

Rather than proceed to a traditional
trial, however, the parties agreed to
an alternative dispute resolution
option - a summary jury trial (SJT).
SJTs are abbreviated, one-day trials
with few witnesses, summary presentation
of evidence and a six-person
jury. But for the jury, the process is
similar to arbitration. SJTs are used to
expedite resolution of both large and
small cases. In the snowmobile incident,
the litigants settled the case for
$400,000 prior to the SJT date,
demonstrating that scheduling an SJT
- just as scheduling a traditional trial
- fosters settlement, only far earlier
in the litigation process.

Retired 8th District Supreme Court Justice Joseph Gerace- who was a member of the UCS Jury Trial Project and now serves as a judicial hearing officer - is leading the effort to make SJTs a way of life in New York State. The 8th district pioneered the use of summary jury trials in New York eight years ago, beginning with Judge Gerace's Chautauqua County SJT project. An SJT is typically scheduled within 60 days of the last settlement effort.

Judge Joseph GeracePHOTO: ANITA WOMACK-WEIDNER

"By successfully resolving nearly all
of the cases in which a summary jury
trial is used at only a fraction of the
resources ... the summary jury trial is
a potent tool for relieving calendar
congestion," said 8th Judicial District
Administrative Judge Sharon Townsend.
"Jurors benefit by fulfilling their
civic duty with a minimum of inconvenience;
courts benefit by freeing up
valuable space on their calendars; and
parties benefit by resolving their disputes
in a prompt and cost-effective
manner." In the last three years of the
Chautauqua project, not a single case
proceeded to regular trial.

Under the Chautauqua rules,
there are strict time limits on voir
dire. Each side has a maximum of
two peremptory challenges. Jury
selection is often completed in 60 to
90 minutes. Each side gets a 10-
minute opening and closing statement
and one hour to present its
case. Attorneys are typically limited
to two live or videotaped witnesses;
additional testimony may be submitted
by deposition transcript or sworn
affidavit. Each counsel may prepare
a notebook of materials for the jurors
(previously reviewed by the other
side) and walk the jury through the
exhibits. Medical testimony is submitted
by written report, PowerPoint
presentation, physician affidavit or
video. The judge gives a streamlined
charge to the jury, which renders its
verdict by the end of the day.

SJT verdicts may be binding or
nonbinding, depending on the parties'
agreement and the order of the
court. Current rules require consent
of the parties in both binding and
nonbinding cases. Often in binding
cases the parties will stipulate to
high/low limits of recovery.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas
Lambros of Ohio pioneered what he called "summary jury trials" in 1980
to encourage court settlements in the
face of crowded dockets and trial calendar
backlogs.

Summary jury trials have been
used in at least 17 states and several
federal jurisdictions to resolve large
and small damage cases, including
commercial disputes, negligence and
medical malpractice actions, product
liability cases, and even anti-trust
and fraud cases.

Cases recommended for binding
SJTs in the 8th district program manual
include: relatively small damage
cases where the cost of medical
experts is prohibitive; cases involving
large amounts where negotiations
are close; and cases where injuries
may result in verdicts exceeding policy
limits and defense counsel seeks
to cap the verdict.

Nonbinding SJTs typically
include: damage cases where an advisory
verdict would promote settlement;
cases where damages are the
only issue; and cases where one party
has an unrealistic settlement position.
Even with a nonbinding verdict,
court officials say the parties get a
good indication of what may happen
at a traditional trial and may settle.

Between October 1998 and
December 2004, of the 183 cases in
the Chautauqua SJT project, 101 cases
settled before the summary jury trial
date and two were stayed by bankruptcy
before the SJT. Of the 80 that
proceeded to a summary jury trial, 21
were resolved by binding verdicts. Of
the 59 that went to nonbinding verdict,
43 then settled, 10 were discontinued,
and six proceeded to a regular
trial. At least 10 Erie County judges
have participated in the 8th district
program, with 120 summary jury trials
in 2002-2004, 98 binding and 22
nonbinding. Judges in Niagara, Genesee,
Cattaraugus and Allegany have
also tried the SJT process. Every case
resolved by an SJT, whether by verdict or settlement thereafter, is one less
case on the regular trial docket, reducing
pending caseload numbers.

While lawyers and judges who
have used SJTs believe in its effectiveness,
its acceptance is not widespread.
Judge Gerace estimates that if
SJTs were used statewide, the courts
would see a significant savings in
juror costs alone.

"Summary Jury Trials, used with
great success upstate, should be
expanded and tested in downstate
jurisdictions as well," First Deputy
Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau
wrote in her report "Comprehensive
Civil Justice Program 2005: Study
and Recommendations."

The SJT procedure has been used
successfully on an experimental basis
in Albany, Putnam, Onondaga,
Orange, Saratoga and Monroe Counties
and is being considered in others,
including Clinton, Montgomery,
Dutchess, New York, Schenectady,
and Ulster. Just last year, a voluntary
nonbinding program was adopted by
local rule in Kings County. In February,
plans for a voluntary binding SJT
program advanced in the Bronx, with
the endorsement of the county bar
association.

"Any judge who is interested in
meeting standards and goals, any
lawyer, any client who would like their
cases tried early, ought to look at the
summary jury trial," said Judge Gerace.
For more information about the
8th district program, visit: www.nycourts.gov/courts/8jd/sjt.shtml.